RFC: exact problem identity and contribution evidence

Updated 11 September 2026. This is the narrowed design discussion; #4394 is the implementation roadmap.

| Concern | Agreed delivery |
| --- | --- |
| Target identity | Repository, module, declaration and exact source revision |
| Shared mathematical data | Lean-derived metadata and one native `conjectures.json` in #5375 |
| Workspace generation | Native export in #5337 and the shared generator |
| Review and proof records | Separate contracts, joined through exact targets and run references |
| Evidence display | #5388 shows producer, revisions, outcome and current applicability separately from maintainer status |

The catalog is not a universal manifest for every tool. Lean/Lake own dependency pins; the native exporter owns elaboration and signature checks. Review reports, verification results and source references retain their own contracts. No global problem-ID migration, registration requirement or new registry is part of this delivery.

Palomar registration, Comparator verification and pinned proof links describe different facts. They are not a ranking of mathematical acceptance. An older result remains visible when its target changes, with its applicability marked explicitly.

**Implementation:** #5152 → #5375; toolkit #5386–#5388; acceptance #5376/#5377. Anonymous declarations remain the separate maintainer policy question in #4819.

The original proposal grew out of #4951's source reconstruction. #5337 supersedes that exporter approach. The earlier universal-manifest workstreams, answer-syntax migration and workshop deadlines are historical proposals, not delivery requirements.

Keep this discussion open until maintainer disposition of this narrower boundary is recorded. Then close it with the remaining implementation links; do not create another roadmap.

Start with the narrowed boundary in this issue and follow the implementation links: #5152, #5375, #5386–#5388, and acceptance issues #5376/#5377. Compare those workstreams with the separate policy question in #4819 and the superseded exporter approach in #5337; done means maintainer disposition is recorded and the remaining implementation links are clear.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.